Is Abortion Immoral?

[chrisstavrous]

Yes and no are not adequate enough parameters for me to make a response.

[slave2six]

If by "immoral" you are following a Biblical moral code and you are defining a fetus as being a human being from the moment of conception, then my question to you is, "How can abortion be immoral when god does not prevent spontaneous abortions?"

[Guest chrisassaf]

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

In yellowknife they say, "If you have an abortion, you could be killing the next Beethoven."

[pratt]

or you could be killing the next stalin, mao tse dong or just the next asswipe chris-ASS-af

[Guest OldSeer]

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

All killing can be considered immoral. Immorality originates and is a product of the animal mind  One also has a right by nature to defend for the preservation of one;s self. An attack upon another is also created by nature, while to defend is also created by nature. To defend one needs the animal mind to ward off an attack. It's 6 one way and 1/2 dozen the other. It's the way universal construction made it, and in each case presented, one is acting within universal construction. One has the right to attack, and the right to defend. If one attacks another, the one attacked having the right to defend can opt not only to defend but also counter attack. From the inhumane comes the attack, in this eggzample<---?? and from the inhumane comes the defense an/or counter attack  But,if both are knowledgeable in the rudiments/laws/natural laws of the self (the humane and the inhumane personages) then even the one who opts/aspires to a life of the humane can change temporarily to the inhumane and  handle the problem, and then after return to the life of the humane/human. In any cattle herd you can observe this same process. But cattle with no ability of an acute intellect needed to understand and learn--- (people do) are stuck with what they are  It's not likely cattle can be taught to be expressly human.

 

So,what about the lowly mosquito. Yup,if you smack it you/re inhumane----but,let the mosquito be liable for it's own actions.You aren't liable for all that the universe made.The mosquito is a predator and your blood is your,s. It can't help it but it also has to be liable for it's actions.Smack da bastid.,The situation demands what it does. You did not present the situation--the bug did. Smack the unintellectual numskull.

 

Abortion---Absolutely immoral and inhumane. Some one doesn't care to be liable for their actions any more them the mosquito. Why should a fetus be regarded  the same as a mosquito. In humanity would it not rank above a bug. Just because one cannot or "will not" control their sex drive, how does sex drive outweigh responsibility. The universe created the human and the animal mind--it also created those with higher intellect--so then the higher intellect is used to erase consequences to avoid doing the hum,an thing. The fetus did not attack,it creates no willful harm. If so -there is no justifiable reason to kill it, except---if one wills to override the natural concept of humanity and morals by which all civilizations have ended themselves. It has become that moral decay has become the way, and that which was immoral yesterday becomes moral today where by the immoral becomes moral. Morals is that which preserves life not ends it.

[RogueScholar]

Then dear old god has the monopoly on immorality as he's caused more abortions than have ever or ever will be performed by the hand of a human. At the end of the day, my personal opinions are pretty much null as I don't think it's my right to dictate what a woman should do with her body and what should happen between an appropriately qualified provider and a well informed patient.

 

Just to be clear, even the most uncomplicated pregnancies do infact cause harm to the pregnant individual. A highly complicated cascade of changes occur and the person experiences physiological distress as a result of said changes.

[xphish]

Then dear old god has the monopoly on immorality as he's caused more abortions than have ever or ever will be performed by the hand of a human. At the end of the day, my personal opinions are pretty much null as I don't think it's my right to dictate what a woman should do with her body and what should happen between an appropriately qualified provider and a well informed patient.

 

Just to be clear, even the most uncomplicated pregnancies do infact cause harm to the pregnant individual. A highly complicated cascade of changes occur and the person experiences physiological distress as a result of said changes.

 

I have to agree.  How many ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages have happened by natural occurance?  Does not the almighty god love these children and want them to live and love him?  If there were a god, this is his doing, these are his/her/its "abortions".

 

Woman have a right to make the choice.  Women have the right to make an informed decision with her doctor about what to do with her body.  A doctor has the right to terminate the pregnancy to save a mother's life.  The bible shit that was spewed to me (and as a xian pewed out of my mouth as well) is sameful.  It is a woman's choice, and any asshole man who tries to make that choice for her should have his balls cut off.

[RogueScholar]

Yep. In fact, up to 25% of all pregnancies end up being miscarried/spontaneously aborted. Many of these people may not even know they are pregnant. It's okay for god to off one out of every four pregnancies, but god forbid a human does the same.

[Guest OldSeer]

Yep. In fact, up to 25% of all pregnancies end up being miscarried/spontaneously aborted. Many of these people may not even know they are pregnant. It's okay for god to off one out of every four pregnancies, but god forbid a human does the same.. 

There's nothing in the universe that says one cannot play God. Governments do it.

[Guest OldSeer]

Then dear old god has the monopoly on immorality as he's caused more abortions than have ever or ever will be performed by the hand of a human. At the end of the day, my personal opinions are pretty much null as I don't think it's my right to dictate what a woman should do with her body and what should happen between an appropriately qualified provider and a well informed patient.

 

Just to be clear, even the most uncomplicated pregnancies do infact cause harm to the pregnant individual. A highly complicated cascade of changes occur and the person experiences physiological distress as a result of said changes.

It could be God is all that is. It depends upon what one construes god to be or mean. God could be all that is moral,immoral, humane and inhumane. It could be all these things combined. But, I wrote nothing about a God. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I've never understood why christians aren't in favor of abortion.  If the purpose of a christian's life is to get as many souls redeemed as possible, and the souls of unborn fetuses have not yet been "born into sin", then why would christians not be okay with just sending those little souls straight on up to heaven to be with sweet baby jesus?  Even as a christian, I supported abortion as a sort of "get out of jail free" card for souls who would be received into heaven without having to suffer the agonies of life here on earth. 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

In yellowknife they say, "If you have an abortion, you could be killing the next Beethoven."

 

 

If someone has an abortion, they could be preventing the life of a scientist who could cure AIDS if they were given the chance to live or they could be preventing the life of a dictator who would kill millions of people if given the chance to live. It makes no sense to draw the conclusion that abortion is immoral simply because of who the aborted fetus could have been. Trying to figure who a fetus could have become is like trying to guess whether or not flying gorillas live in a far away galaxy that we can't even travel to.

 

I say that whether or not an abortion is immoral depends 100% on the reasoning behind a pregnant woman's choice to get one. Without knowing exactly what she's thinking, no one else can judge a woman for making that choice but her.

[Guest OldSeer]

 

Then dear old god has the monopoly on immorality as he's caused more abortions than have ever or ever will be performed by the hand of a human. At the end of the day, my personal opinions are pretty much null as I don't think it's my right to dictate what a woman should do with her body and what should happen between an appropriately qualified provider and a well informed patient.

 

Just to be clear, even the most uncomplicated pregnancies do infact cause harm to the pregnant individual. A highly complicated cascade of changes occur and the person experiences physiological distress as a result of said changes.

 

I have to agree.  How many ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages have happened by natural occurance?  Does not the almighty god love these children and want them to live and love him?  If there were a god, this is his doing, these are his/her/its "abortions".

 

Woman have a right to make the choice.  Women have the right to make an informed decision with her doctor about what to do with her body.  A doctor has the right to terminate the pregnancy to save a mother's life.  The bible shit that was spewed to me (and as a xian pewed out of my mouth as well) is sameful.  It is a woman's choice, and any asshole man who tries to make that choice for her should have his balls cut off.

 

If you,re looking for an excuse for abortion you have one. If it's the life of the mother or the baby a choice has to be made. Regardless it still remains immoral.There are decisions that have to be made that we don't like. Under medical conditions it is best the parents decide,and let no judgement be upon them. In these cases it is immoral for one and moral for the other. Moral saves the mother and immoral is left for the child, or it can be the other way. The nature of the matter must be accepted.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I think it is only immoral if the woman has an abortion without the consent of the biological father.  I think the father, and only the father, should have any right when it comes to preventing her from aborting his child.

[Pantophobia]

I've mentioned before that this idea that life begins the second sperm meets egg is a very new concept, and, that in earlier incarnations of Western civilization, abortion and infanticide were practiced BY THE CHURCH as necessary population control. Priests and midwife-nuns in the Catholic church were often trained in these techniques (especially in poor Irish Catholic communities.) This article is a fantastic historical breakdown of perspectives over the trajectory of history in America, and the political reasons behind the contemporary bullshit. Turns out, the founding fathers would totally be down with abortion, too.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/08/08/71893/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

[Guest OldSeer]

I think it is only immoral if the woman has an abortion without the consent of the biological father.  I think the father, and only the father, should have any right when it comes to preventing her from aborting his child.

Morals must remain constent/consistent. What was  immoral yesterday cannot be made moral today--hence, there's no such thing as morals. All civilizations have gone through this same process by which morals are changed for the sake of convenience.  The only alternative to accept an immoral is if it's justified. Preserving the life of (in the case of a mother) would be a justification. Just as war is immoral but justified for the preservation or security of a population. If an individual has a natural right of self defense then also an entire population  There is a need at times and circumstance that immorality has to be accepted for a particular reason. The reason civilizations always enter a moral decline is--civilization can only operate and exist on the tenants "of" immorality, and in turn are doing nothing more then trying to establish morality with-in an immoral operstion. Civilization must then exist on a system of morals that are skewed to fit "what" operates the system. It becomes self destroying. No people can survive immorality. Considering that the world doesn't (or understand it's in this skewed concept) know this concept the process keeps repeating itself , as history shows.History is a record of the results of immorality. . . ( hope I've been helpful) 

[falemon]

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

 

What importance are knowledge of one's morals checkboxes without an understanding of ones perception of it?

 

Abortion is about as immoral as the tree of knowledge. Getting rid of a child you know of and would have an emotional attachment to is much more difficult than getting rid of the option of that child being born by not having sex.

 

If I told you about an amazing guy in the future, would it be immoral to stop their parents from meeting and in essence aborting his future existence? How is that morally different from an abortion?

 

What is life?

 

What is poverty?

 

Is it immoral to tithe to a pastor who wants for nothing instead of an entire village who will starve to death?

 

Then back to your question, how does abortion fit into this complex web of possibilities?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I think it is only immoral if the woman has an abortion without the consent of the biological father.  I think the father, and only the father, should have any right when it comes to preventing her from aborting his child.

Morals must remain constent/consistent. What was  immoral yesterday cannot be made moral today--hence, there's no such thing as morals. All civilizations have gone through this same process by which morals are changed for the sake of convenience.  The only alternative to accept an immoral is if it's justified. Preserving the life of (in the case of a mother) would be a justification. Just as war is immoral but justified for the preservation or security of a population. If an individual has a natural right of self defense then also an entire population  There is a need at times and circumstance that immorality has to be accepted for a particular reason. The reason civilizations always enter a moral decline is--civilization can only operate and exist on the tenants "of" immorality, and in turn are doing nothing more then trying to establish morality with-in an immoral operstion. Civilization must then exist on a system of morals that are skewed to fit "what" operates the system. It becomes self destroying. No people can survive immorality. Considering that the world doesn't (or understand it's in this skewed concept) know this concept the process keeps repeating itself , as history shows.History is a record of the results of immorality. . . ( hope I've been helpful) 

 

How is that related to what should be the rights of the biological father?  Did I miss something?

[Pantophobia]

The biological rights of the father should not, do not, and cannot trump the rights of the pregnant woman actually carrying the baby. 

 

Sorry if some men think that is "unfair," but, until a man can either get pregnant or have the fetus implanted in his own body to continue the pregnancy, that's the bottom moral line. What a man goes through with pregnancy is in no way equal to what a woman goes through. 

[Guest OldSeer]

 

 

I think it is only immoral if the woman has an abortion without the consent of the biological father.  I think the father, and only the father, should have any right when it comes to preventing her from aborting his child.

Morals must remain constent/consistent. What was  immoral yesterday cannot be made moral today--hence, there's no such thing as morals. All civilizations have gone through this same process by which morals are changed for the sake of convenience.  The only alternative to accept an immoral is if it's justified. Preserving the life of (in the case of a mother) would be a justification. Just as war is immoral but justified for the preservation or security of a population. If an individual has a natural right of self defense then also an entire population  There is a need at times and circumstance that immorality has to be accepted for a particular reason. The reason civilizations always enter a moral decline is--civilization can only operate and exist on the tenants "of" immorality, and in turn are doing nothing more then trying to establish morality with-in an immoral operstion. Civilization must then exist on a system of morals that are skewed to fit "what" operates the system. It becomes self destroying. No people can survive immorality. Considering that the world doesn't (or understand it's in this skewed concept) know this concept the process keeps repeating itself , as history shows.History is a record of the results of immorality. . . ( hope I've been helpful) 

 

How is that related to what should be the rights of the biological father?  Did I miss something?

 

I posted in the wrong place.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The biological rights of the father should not, do not, and cannot trump the rights of the pregnant woman actually carrying the baby. 

 

Sorry if some men think that is "unfair," but, until a man can either get pregnant or have the fetus implanted in his own body to continue the pregnancy, that's the bottom moral line. What a man goes through with pregnancy is in no way equal to what a woman goes through. 

We may just have to disagree on this, which is okay.  But if the biological father is expected to provide for the child after it is born, then the biological father should also be entitled to have some say in whether his child is aborted.  It takes two people to create that life; both should be involved in terminating it.  I know I'm crazy for thinking this way, but I'm a father myself and would not trade my son's life for anything.

[Guest OldSeer]

 

The biological rights of the father should not, do not, and cannot trump the rights of the pregnant woman actually carrying the baby. 

 

Sorry if some men think that is "unfair," but, until a man can either get pregnant or have the fetus implanted in his own body to continue the pregnancy, that's the bottom moral line. What a man goes through with pregnancy is in no way equal to what a woman goes through. 

We may just have to disagree on this, which is okay.  But if the biological father is expected to provide for the child after it is born, then the biological father should also be entitled to have some say in whether his child is aborted.  It takes two people to create that life; both should be involved in terminating it.  I know I'm crazy for thinking this way, but I'm a father myself and would not trade my son's life for anything.

 

And then one also as to ask- Who determines when a baby is a baby or what a fetus is worth. If driving UIA and a woman is killed in an accident and pregnant the driver can be charged with 2 vehicular homicides. But.a fetus can be aborted at the same term ester and it's legal. So when is a fetus worth what and when. Agreed on the fathers rights. But the woman should have the sole right if the pregnancy is a threat to her life. 

[falemon]

 

The biological rights of the father should not, do not, and cannot trump the rights of the pregnant woman actually carrying the baby. 

 

Sorry if some men think that is "unfair," but, until a man can either get pregnant or have the fetus implanted in his own body to continue the pregnancy, that's the bottom moral line. What a man goes through with pregnancy is in no way equal to what a woman goes through. 

We may just have to disagree on this, which is okay.  But if the biological father is expected to provide for the child after it is born, then the biological father should also be entitled to have some say in whether his child is aborted.  It takes two people to create that life; both should be involved in terminating it.  I know I'm crazy for thinking this way, but I'm a father myself and would not trade my son's life for anything.

 

But such is life. Simple fact of the situation is that it affects two people in different ways, but how does one resolve such a conflict?

 

Does having a say mean overriding another person's decision?

 

On the flip side I think we all as human beings have a bias towards our own self entitlement to authority. The man says he should have final say because it's his seed (or some other reason), the woman because she carries the baby (or some other reason), but so long as we do this without acknowledging the fact the decision affects at least two people in different ways we'll never be able to get along as human beings.

 

And this self entitlement to authority and priority is at the basis of most pointless conflicts that could easily have been resolved if people could be more objective.

[Pantophobia]

 

The biological rights of the father should not, do not, and cannot trump the rights of the pregnant woman actually carrying the baby. 

 

Sorry if some men think that is "unfair," but, until a man can either get pregnant or have the fetus implanted in his own body to continue the pregnancy, that's the bottom moral line. What a man goes through with pregnancy is in no way equal to what a woman goes through. 

We may just have to disagree on this, which is okay.  But if the biological father is expected to provide for the child after it is born, then the biological father should also be entitled to have some say in whether his child is aborted.  It takes two people to create that life; both should be involved in terminating it.  I know I'm crazy for thinking this way, but I'm a father myself and would not trade my son's life for anything.

 

 

 

I still come down firmly on the side of a woman's body > a man's money (or sperm). RedneckProf, since you are basing some of this on your personal experience with fatherhood, I'll give you my "personal experience." I got pregnant after a one-nighter, in which my partner didn't tell me that the condom broke. Thus, where I normally could have gone to get the MAP, I instead had no idea that there was a real danger of pregnancy until my doctor said "Guess what?" By doing so, that man took a choice, an autonomy, away from me.

 

One of the things I had heard from him during our brief relationship was how much he wanted to have children. Can you imagine the utter terror of not only being pregnant and knowing it was the wrong time and person, but having to wonder if the father could force me to carry the child and then relinquish custody to him?

 

So this is one of the many reasons why I continue to harp on this fact: any rights a father might have is trumped by the rights of the woman actually experiencing the pregnancy. I know that child support laws are imperfect, but again, that does not outweigh the rights of the pregnant woman and her body. Every situation is different, every pregnancy is different, and each woman needs to make the best decision she can under those circumstances. 

 

I also know you love your son and said you "wouldn't trade his life" for anything. But if he hadn't existed in the first place, it would be very different than thinking about it retrospectively now. I'm sure that if I had gone ahead with my pregnancy, I would love the child and not have traded it "for anything." But I couldn't take that risk. And that was my choice… and my right, not to mention my responsibility. The thought that someone else--the government, a church, a family member, or even the sperm-supplier--should have any say in that gut-wrenching decision is inhumane. And that is why I'm so passionate about this stance. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

The biological rights of the father should not, do not, and cannot trump the rights of the pregnant woman actually carrying the baby. 

 

Sorry if some men think that is "unfair," but, until a man can either get pregnant or have the fetus implanted in his own body to continue the pregnancy, that's the bottom moral line. What a man goes through with pregnancy is in no way equal to what a woman goes through. 

We may just have to disagree on this, which is okay.  But if the biological father is expected to provide for the child after it is born, then the biological father should also be entitled to have some say in whether his child is aborted.  It takes two people to create that life; both should be involved in terminating it.  I know I'm crazy for thinking this way, but I'm a father myself and would not trade my son's life for anything.

 

 

 

I still come down firmly on the side of a woman's body > a man's money (or sperm). RedneckProf, since you are basing some of this on your personal experience with fatherhood, I'll give you my "personal experience." I got pregnant after a one-nighter, in which my partner didn't tell me that the condom broke. Thus, where I normally could have gone to get the MAP, I instead had no idea that there was a real danger of pregnancy until my doctor said "Guess what?" By doing so, that man took a choice, an autonomy, away from me.

 

One of the things I had heard from him during our brief relationship was how much he wanted to have children. Can you imagine the utter terror of not only being pregnant and knowing it was the wrong time and person, but having to wonder if the father could force me to carry the child and then relinquish custody to him?

 

So this is one of the many reasons why I continue to harp on this fact: any rights a father might have is trumped by the rights of the woman actually experiencing the pregnancy. I know that child support laws are imperfect, but again, that does not outweigh the rights of the pregnant woman and her body. Every situation is different, every pregnancy is different, and each woman needs to make the best decision she can under those circumstances. 

 

I also know you love your son and said you "wouldn't trade his life" for anything. But if he hadn't existed in the first place, it would be very different than thinking about it retrospectively now. I'm sure that if I had gone ahead with my pregnancy, I would love the child and not have traded it "for anything." But I couldn't take that risk. And that was my choice… and my right, not to mention my responsibility. The thought that someone else--the government, a church, a family member, or even the sperm-supplier--should have any say in that gut-wrenching decision is inhumane. And that is why I'm so passionate about this stance. 

 

It's completely understandable that you would be so passionate.  But, as you say, every situation is different.  If my wife had even hinted at abortion, I would have done everything in my power to save my son.  I would probably also have lost him.  That is the most gut-wrenching thought for me.  I like what falemon said above.  And I have not made any argument to the effect that the rights of the father should over-ride or trump the rights of the mother.  I simply think a lot of the laws surrounding child support, abortion, and custody need to shift a bit towards more fairness regarding fathers.

 

I know the man in your situation deceived you; maybe it was intentional.  But consider all the men out there who never even knew they could have been a father.  Think of those whose voices were silenced by the woman getting an abortion without even telling them they were pregnant.  Sure, some have just shrugged it off, perhaps most.  But I guarantee you at least one of them is losing sleep over the child they will never get to hold.